tv Defense News with Vago Muradian ABC November 23, 2014 11:00am-11:31am EST
>> welcome to "defense news." america's adversaries aree increasingly harnessing fast-moving technology. isis is using social media sites like facebook and twitter as powerful command and control, propaganda and recruing tools. we are investing in long-range missiles, cyber and more to stay ahead of rising adversaries. chuck hagel recently unveiled an initiative. theultifaceted effort will use war games and exercises to
identify future cability needs that in turn will shape long range research and development. he also wants broad reforms to strengthen the pentagon to improve agility. a key facet of the initiative is designed to counter or offset the technological advances of u.s. foes. the first offset strategy came during the cold war. u.s. leaders wanted to counter conventional forces with nuclear weapons. in the second offset strategy, the pentagon invested in stealth, gps and other technology. they imposed enormous costs soviet union. critics say the strategy is too disjointed and china also has cutting-edge technology and manufacturing experience. joining us to explain the dod initiative and what it means i s one of t key architects, and deputy defense secretary bob worth.
strategist, what are the biggest threats and trends that america's national security enterpriseust prepare for as it looks to the future? >> that's a good question. first our state powers. are both on the un security council, both have nuclea weapons, both have regional aspirations and some global aspirations. how do we deal with those two powers? that is going to increasingly take a lot of our attentio then there are nuclear powers and regional powers that want to powers.uclear one we deal with all the time, noh korea, and another, iran, has said they want to gain nuclear weapons. that's another issue. the third is transnational networks. you have a state problem, regional problem and .on-regional actors
extremely difficult. later on top of all three are advancements happening at a very rapid pace. >> one of the leang questions about this innovation -- and i think there is a recognition inside and outside the building that there is time for change -- that it is a time for change, how are all the pieces of this going to work together? there's a wargames piece, advanced capabilities, long-range research and development. talk to us about how a of these elements are going to come togeth to give you a holistic answer? >> the broader innovation initiative that secretary hagel announced at this past saturday's forum has five key aspects. it's iortant everybody understand this is not all about technolo. the first andost important thing is about people. people have always been the department of defense's key
secret weapon. the question we have is how can we make innovative leaders? it's about people first. second, we want to reinvigorate wargaming. this provides -- >> which is a passion of years. >> a passion of mine and something the department of defense used to do a lot of. over the last 12 years, our activities have actually dropped down. those will identify new operational concepts, technologies we would like to have or help us determine how we would use a technology, and that would lead to more innovative ans and strategies. the final thing is our business. besides technical superiority, how do we make our business practices more innovative. within those, we have advanced capabilities focused on state actors. it's looking at the capabilities that could potentially hurt our nation the most and how do you prepare to address those
capabilities and how do u deter their use? of effort.ilar lines strategy, wargaming, concepts. but the long-range research and develop main -- development program is desigd to tell us how we could use technology to gain an advantage over time. >> this is an effort over time, but do you also see it impacting, more immediately, the whetherefense plan, through identifying capabilities, or is there a nearer term impact we arere goig to see on this? >> it's a good question. congress constantly tells us hey, quit giving us a budget -- budget driven strategy. we are trying to do that. drivenot have a strategy budget at the sequestration level. if you want to see a budget
driven strategy, if the sequestration. it's a good question. are we going to be able to do it? it's a good question. right now, we would have much more room to roam and be much more creative if we had additional topline to try different things. but we are really, really in a hurt right now based on the uncertainty of our budget situation. >> and congress obviously demanding yonot cut the things you nt to cut in order to invest elsewhere. the good news is everyone understands the need for change. the bad newsws is you will have three budgets tops to get that .y and -- buy-in how are you going to get congress to invest in this and make it stick so that you have a long-ran plan? >> a lot of people say you only have two years, why start now? a strategy that started in 1975 carried across multiple administratns,
democrat and republican. at we can do for the next two years is set the course. every administration, obviously, is going to moderate i but i look back on the key strategies, and once you get the strategies right, they generally go across the administrations and overtime. that is what we're trying to do in the next two years, do the foundational work necessary to get on the right path. >> met me ask you -- let me ask you about the criticism. war, adversarieies were isolated from globabal technology trends. with china, that is not the case. critics say that china is not only vacuuming our technology, but benefiting from its own loca technology investment. how w are you going to do this? how do you stay ahead on the technologyiece when there is a level technology playing field, increasingly, aand how do we
reinvent ourselves at a time when heavy institutional structures have a black hole in her shut, almost, that light -- ertia that lighteir sh cannot escape from? >> what we're trying to do is have a temporal strategy in this that we did not have in the last one. in the last strategy, we basically said if we pursue stealth guided missions in battle networking, these are things we do not believe our adversary will be able tcopy easily and we will have an enduring advantage. and that is exactly what happened. if you said right now the technological playing field is much more level, so what we're tually looking for is, instead of trying to come up with a unifying field theory which will last f for the next four decade, we are looking at what we can do in the next 10 years to deter our adversaries. what we neneed to start building
to maintn that advantage and what do we need to do to start --ing the technological seeding the technological groundwo for the third. we can do a fe year defense plan. we are looking at what we can do 10 years be on that and beyond. you have to approach this postt temporarily, temp orally, and with an eye towards you are not going to be able to find a single enduring advantage. >> why do this in public? there are those that say i should be a highly classified effort. >> the last efforts were not highly classified at all. the strategy was announced in the eisenenhower administration. he made it very clear. we are going to rely on tactical strategic and nuclear weapons. the second offset strategy quickly morphed from the assault breaker tech knowledge he ,emonstration to airland battle
two follow-on forces attack. all of that was clearly in the opening. we expect the same thing, and that is what is key. if you take a look at the second fset strategy, what happened was departmental leadership kind of said this is the y we need to go, but where it really kicked off was when the air force and the army said a hot, theseharness technologies, we e going to be able to change the game, and that is exactly what happened. >> comin
time when there are e many in industry who uto go about bringing innovation to the who arent because -- skeptical about bringing innovation to the department because they are convinced you're not going to buy it. >> innovation is an integral part of strategy. many people in the department of defense were captains of industry. we have less flexibility in that today than we did in 1975 because of the rules that have accumulated over time. >> conflict of interest in particular. an important part. we have to be able to innovate along with industry. in the 1960's andnd 1950's itas all about jet engines and nuclear weapons, nuclear submarines. in the 60's, it was all about space. in the 70's it was all about stealth and guided munitions. all of those things are being told by the government. now, the focus of innovation is really in the commeial sector, biotechnology, nanotechnology,
robotics. we have to be able to get that innovation. frank kendall, who is leading dp is spearheading the effort on that. strategy to keepp ahead of rapidly advancing adversaries or to compensate for shrinking forces? >> the united states has never, since the end of world war ii, tried to match adversaries tank for tank, person for p person, missile for missile. we have always sought an offset, and generally it has been based around a combination of great people, technology, and new operational concepts. regardless of what the budget would be, we would want to see this, but under sequestration, our freedom of action is really going to be limited area that is a problem we need to address as a nati. >> and why it is important to
figure out where you are going to place your bets. >> that's right. if you have more budget, you can make more bets and see which es layout. some want to go after electric weapons, directed energy, rail guns. others want t to double down o staff -- stealth. others want to emphasize transnational sets -- threats and new tools to deal with him. when you have the budget where you can apply a lot of different things, you can seehich one has the best payoff. with sequestration, you simply cannot. >> speaking of sequestration, you gu have decided at the president has given you latude to ask for more money. base closures didn't happen. benefits refororm didn't happen. the plan now apars to be that you're going to ask for $60 billion more over the next two years. what a the priorities that covers and what happens when you don't g it? >> the president was very clear.
the national security of the united states is not wl served by sequestraration. last year, he provided 100 $15 bibillion over the five-year sequestrationbove cuts. he said this is the minimum we need. congress has not responded to that. over the course of the next two submitting at be the president's budget level, and we hope congress will work with us to get closer to that number. been making this call. chairman dempsey has made this call. i can go all the way down the list. nobody appears to be listening. are you guys moving the needle and are you going to get more money? >> don't know yet. we have heard encouraging sounds from some members of congressss that sequestration has to go. we have heard other members of congress say no, we need to stay at the s sequestration level. we don't know how this will play
out. we have to keep pointing out that if yowant a budget dren strategy, a budget driven strategy, go to sequestration. that isant a strategy good for the nation, go with the president's budget. >> by some accounts, the army has 50,000 or 40,000 more troops, about $5 billion, but that still remains a zero-sum game. do you have a backup plan that slideffething has to the tae whether that is long-ran strike, nuclear subs herbalist missiles? >> we have already been --- ballistic missiles? >> we have been clear. the marine corps will have to go down to 100 75,000. we have to drop our carrier force down and drop the national guard. we have been as clear as
possible to say you do not want go, congress,- just on what you're telling us now. get theseant you to ings. well, you can have it both ways. you can't take money away from us and then don't expect us to make cuts. >> are we buying the right sorts of things for the foot -- for the threats we face? primary program is a tactctical fighter aircraft. we are putting out service to kc 10 which, by some accounts, is the ideal aircraft for the pacific theater, as well as some other programs. doe need t to fundamentally rerethink what we are buying at some point to better match h the kind of threat we see? >> that is what the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and nine have been doing for the last six months. i was the undersecretary of the navy and i was very aware of the budget. this is the first time i have
had to look across the defense portfolio. there are changes we camake it we hope to make some of them in fy 16 and fy 17. once we have a better sense of what our strategy should be. >> could those affecd programs as well? >> they should affect big rogue rims, medium programs, sma programs. rims, medium programs, sma programs. >> -- big progrgrams, medium i knew it could rough in there, but how rough?
there was no way to know for sure. hey guys.... daddy, it's pink! but hey. a new house it's a blank canvas. and we got a great one thanks to a really low mortgage rate from navy federal credit union. pink so she's a princess. you got a problem with that? rah oorah open to the armed forces and their families for over 8 80 years. navy federal credit union. >> we are back with deputy defense secretary bob work.
sir, you just finished a nuclear review. there is a sense that all three paparts of the triad need to be revitalized, but it is a staggering cost and we are in a tough financial situation. how is this going to be paid for when you have obligations like nuclear and subs? >> we want to keep our current nuclear deterrence ready. how we keep that maintained until we start to recapapitalize we have to put more money and to keep it maintained, the cost are staggering. we will need to addressss this s a nation. we nd an infrastructure fund wheree addresthis because we simply willot be able to recapitalize a at the b budget levels we are expecting now. >> i want to take you to china. at the top of the show, we talked about it a couple of
times, obliquely. china isis rapidly developing a mility and spending a lot of money. and t the united states -- they appear undeterred herbal, thesey, making territorial plans d pressu our allies. how do we deter them at this rate or is conflict unavoidable? >> china is a rising power, without question. they have enormous capabilities as a nation in terms of human capital, technology, and military forces. we are in the process of how do we manage? we want to remain a resident pacific power. we want china to accept that. over time, we e are building powers that were just announced by the president. we also need to hedge.
they are developing certain capabilities that would be very problematic for our allies and for us in the weern pacific. it's important to create capabilities to deter their use. no offfficial has spent as much time othe challenge china is presenting. is this new stuff or just rethinking how we use our existing capability? >> the thing that makes the united states different from anyonelse in the world is our ability to project powower acros oceanic differences. anti-access area denial capabilities are designed to blunt that capability. have plenty off things in the inventory now that would help us overcome these. we have to build many more, and we arere in the process of doing soso. >> all military services have been practicing how to operate in the eveventnt that one of our
adversaries takes away our space, our data, corrupted, takes away a satellite. what are we doing holistically to get better at that game of being able to operate ando susueed even without access to the telephone we have grown so accustomed t to? >> it is a much more difficult problem than we had in the cold war because of the cyber threat. w we are trying to do is to have read teams that go and test us in exercises. we need to do this a lot better, however. this is a problem every single leader and the department is based on and we need to get better at it. >> you guys have been boosting the nunumber of troops in iraq. how many more people are you going to need to execute this mission and is it ing to be a
big drag on n your budget? >> some of the strategists that the most have strategic patience. we have a plan right now that is another 1500 troops in addition to the 1500 that are there. we believe that at this point the strategy i is workrking, but is working overtime. people learn patience to find results. we believe that over time it will be e successful. ift is not, we constantly adjust as we have said over and over. >> do you think you can do within the amount of money you're getting right now? >> absolutely. he oversees operations contingency fund is plenty to do what we need to do at this point. >> thanknk you for joining us. >> the pentagon has outltlined s
new defense innovation .nitiative officials want to ensure that the u.s. military remains far ahead of its emissaries. strategyay the will not work the w did during the cold war. chinina is at the center of it. they have top technology and a strong manufufacturing base but theyey do not have the crown just yet. amamerica remainins the world's leading innovator. the pentagon is trying to attack this challenge in a hoholistic way. games and d exercises will help bute dod's future, officials will need to make the department of defense and t the
government more agile. today, congress has a hard time getting out of its own way. weapons must be cheaper and more flexible. overheadust be cut. cyber defense must bboosted. china uses u.s. data to improve their weapons, intimidate u.s. allies, and narrow the capability gap.. deities offset strategy can rk, t reform is imperative. -- department of d defense is offset strategy can work, but reform is imperatitive. thatess must be convinced change is required. thank you for joining us. , we continue our coverage of national and inrnational defense. airbus, boeing, and lockheed martin are at her rivals but we take a look at what would happen if they teamed on -- are bitter rivals, bubut we take a look at at would happen if they teamed
[music] >> how often in a given day do you say, thank you, lord. thank you, thank you, thank you. i'll tell you one time you do. when somebody almost hits you in your car, you say, oh thank you, god. well, what about when you wake up in the morning? when you don't have any motivation except that god is your god. jesus is the lord of your life and he's going to walk with you all day long. >> today on "in touch," "thanksgiving every day." [music] ♪ father god ♪ great and holy one ♪ we bow down